Disciplinary actions initiated post-retirement lack jurisdiction, rendering related penalties unlawful. Proper protocols for issuing charge memos and penalties under applicable regulations must include current employment status.

ORDER :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

Writ petitioner initially assailed the charge memo vide Lr.No.BCC/HRM/IL/95/DA190/7021, dated 26.08.2003/02.09.2003, issued by 2^nd respondent purportedly in exercise of powers under Regulation 45 & 48 of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Pension Regulations’) r/w Sub-Regulation 6(3) of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal Regulations), 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘DA Regulations’) to be arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Subsequent to filing of writ petition, as the 2^nd respondent has passed order dated 21.04.2006 imposing penalty of withdrawing 1/3^rd of pension permanently as a measure of punishment, petitioner sought for amendment of prayer by laying challenge to the said order. This Court, by order dated 11.06.2008, passed in W.P.M.P. No.19752 of 2006, allowed such prayer.

3. (a) Petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the 1^st respondent bank. Eventually, he got promoted to various levels in the bank. Petitioner, during his tenure, had worked as Senior Manager at Kakinada Branch during the period from 1999 till January 2003. He stated to have applied for voluntary retirement on 20.01.2003 in pursuance of the scheme that then existed. Though the respondents were supposed to act on the said application within three months, as otherwise the same amount to deemed acceptance, after repeated reminders with delay, the said request came to be accepted on 1/2 of July, 2003, retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 20.01.2003. Subsequently, 2^nd respondent issued memorandum dated 26.08.2003/ 02.09.2003 communicating statement of allegations and articles of charges purportedly issued in exercise of Regulation 45 and 48 of Pension Regulations r/w Regulation 6(3) of DA Regulations, alleging that petitioner while working as Senior Manager at Kakinada Branch, reported to have committed certain acts and deeds of omission and commission which amounted to misconduct in terms of Regulations 3 and 24 of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Conduct Regulations’).

(b) The statement of allegations communicated had set out the details of transactions in relation to allowing of credit facilities and disbursement of funds to the named customers, which amounted to serious irregularities and in turn, likely to incur financial loss to the tune of 86.82 lakhs (approx). As petitioner was not diligent and that his actions including omissions showing lack of due care and caution were likely to result in severe financial loss to the bank, the same stated to be qualified to be misconduct necessitating initiation of disciplinary action.

(c) Petitioner submitted statement of defense on 14.11.2003, however, as the respondents continued to proceed with the proposed disciplinary proceedings, he filed present writ petition challenging the very issuance of charge memo to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(d) Pending the writ petition, based on the enquiry officer’s report and after hearing the petitioner, the disciplinary authority/ 2^nd respondent passed order dated 21.04.2006 imposing punishment of withdrawal of 1/3^rd pension permanently. Petitioner assails the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings and also the consequential punishment order.

4. (a) The respondents have filed detailed counter inter alia taking stand that petitioner has